The end of judicial independence in Mexico is a threat to democracy and stability.
Photo via Reuters
Isabella Paganini: Roughly 7,000 judges in Mexico will now all be elected, rather than appointed, removing current judicial workers from their positions.
In addition to the introduction of “faceless judges” – judges whose anonymity is preserved in certain criminal cases for their protection – and a judicial disciplinary tribunal, the popular election is one of many controversial reforms recently proposed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico. These changes will fundamentally transform the nature of judiciary power and composition of courts. Congress and a majority of state legislatures have approved the proposed amendments. However, the country remains divided on the constitutionality and efficacy of the overhaul.
With this drastic change, Obrador aims to expel corruption, nepotism, and conflicts of interest from the judicial system. The measure is viewed as a necessary step to modernizing and restoring faith in the courts by democratizing the selection of judges. Corruption, or at least the perception of its existence, is a significant concern for the Mexican people: 66% of Mexicans perceive judges to be corrupt, according to government surveys, indicating why 60% of the people in Mexico support the constitutional reform.
The main sources of corruption are the prosecutorial organs and state judiciaries. Supporters of Obrador’s initiative to elect judges claim it would allow for a greater representation of the people’s will, thereby diminishing corruption. Constitutional lawyer Juan Carlos González Cancino says Mexico’s changes are necessary because the reform destroys that power structure and ensures judiciaries defend popular will.
To the contrary, the reform has been extensively criticized on the basis that the constitutional revision will politicize the judicial branch and threaten Mexico’s democracy, posing critical implications for the country’s trade obligations. In early September, protestors stormed the Senate chamber in opposition to the measure. It is widely argued that the reform will not resolve the problem of corruption and will only create further instability because it only targets the federal judiciary, which is arguably least responsible for corruption, according to Julio Rios Figueroa, professor at the Department of Law at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM).
According to the Wilson Center, this reform represents a “regression by diminishing judicial independence”, due to its election of judges and magistrates based on political standing. The candidates themselves will be pre-selected by elected branches. Voters will consequently be influenced by political rhetoric unrelated to the justice system. Therefore, judicial composition will evidently become politicized.
Similarly, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico issued a statement claiming that “popular direct action of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” Judicial independence has long been identified as a critical foundation for democratic principles and efficient separation of powers. It ensures that political actors and other powers cannot influence judicial decision-making.
Under the USMCA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico are trade partners. However, the reform has compromised key characteristics of the agreement, sparking concern from the U.S. and Canada. Mexico has consequently paused relations with the US and Canadian embassies. The agreement notably demands that Mexico uphold independent courts free from political influence so that foreign investors are protected. The reform is expected to deter future investment and may damage Mexico’s image as a secure destination for foreign capital, as argued by the Wilson Center. The agreement is also heavily concerned with labor rights, which the reform undermines as it has removed thousands of judicial workers from their positions.
The issue at hand is not that the Mexican government misinterpreted the degree of corruption within the judicial system, but that it simply chose a solution that could potentially do more harm than good. Alternative solutions do exist though. Transparency International’s “Fighting Judicial Corruption” guide has highlighted various mechanisms that can be implemented to reduce corruption within judiciaries, including:
Strengthening oversight of the judiciary through, for example, court monitoring programs.
Improving management of human resources to increase transparency and accountability, by enforcing objective criteria for appointing judges, assigning cases, and determining salaries.
Creating separate bodies that verify the incomes of judges and identify conflicts of interests within the system.
The newly inaugurated and Mexico’s female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has publicly expressed support for the judicial reform, despite pressure from investors and trade partners. In the weeks following, the Senate will be publishing the call for candidates for the judicial election, scheduled to take place in June 2025.
Isabella Paganini is a staff writer for On the Record. She is a sophomore studying International Politics in the School of Foreign Service with a minor in Economics and a certificate in Diplomacy Studies.